Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reunification Vote Per County

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    It's a mechanism with no reverse gear. The GFA doesn't call for ever-greater union of the northeast of Ireland with Britain. The GFA facilitates moving the political centre-of-gravity away from London and towards Ireland.

    How can there be greater union? Can Cork have ever greater union with Ireland?


  • Options
    #153
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    Only in the aspirations of republicans. Most people accept it for what it is, a simple recognition of the unique status if Northern Ireland.

    The only roadmap the GFA is to, is to continued peace.

    Oh, it's 'unique' now?
    It isn't actually, it is just another in a long line of territories that the British have been forced/persuaded to leave after centuries of conflict and strife.
    The only reason they are not gone from Ireland is that it isn't PC to abandon your colonies/acquisitions anymore. They have done the next best thing, set up an agreement where the citizens decide for themselves. They saw the writing on the wall and unionism has been outmaneuvered.


  • Options
    #154
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    How can there be greater union? Can Cork have ever greater union with Ireland?

    How can you ask sensible intelligent people to pretend that the 'union' is safe when we seen the shennanigans over a notional border (that would have given northern Ireland a sweet deal and an actual 'unique' place in the world) in the Irish Sea????
    The union is hanging by a thread.


  • Options
    #155
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Aegir wrote: »
    How can there be greater union? Can Cork have ever greater union with Ireland?

    Oh I don't know... maybe build a big bridge from norniron to Scotland so unionists can keep pretending ULSTER IS BRITISH.


  • Options
    #156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Oh, it's 'unique' now?
    It isn't actually, it is just another in a long line of territories that the British have been forced/persuaded to leave after centuries of conflict and strife.
    The only reason they are not gone from Ireland is that it isn't PC to abandon your colonies/acquisitions anymore. They have done the next best thing, set up an agreement where the citizens decide for themselves. They saw the writing on the wall and unionism has been outmaneuvered.

    Nice rant. Irrelevant to the conversation though.

    The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the union. A significant number don’t. That makes it fairly unique, especialbelly when a large number were happy to resort to slaughtering innocent people to change that situation.

    The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    Nice rant. Irrelevant to the conversation though.

    The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the union. A significant number don’t. That makes it fairly unique, especialbelly when a large number were happy to resort to slaughtering innocent people to change that situation.

    The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.

    Seems to have stopped the British killing people too, but how and ever.

    I like the way you just ignore points made and just keep up a mantra.


  • Options
    #158
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Aegir wrote: »
    The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there.

    That was what gave impetus to the GFA or, more accurately, the Provo bombing campaign in Britain in the 1990's. While people were killing each other in the north Ulsterisation was the response, it was 'contained'. When the IRA started bombing the centre of British cities the Troubles became intolerable.

    The GFA is British acknowledgement that unification is a matter for the people Ireland alone 'without external impediment'. That external impediment has been Britain.


  • Options
    #159
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Aegir wrote: »
    The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.

    The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed on both sides. However, it wasn't an agreement for unionism to revert back to pre-troubles days when as they said, 'Northern Ireland was a cold place for catholics.'


  • Options
    #160
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Aegir wrote: »
    Pretty sure Ulster is a province onthe island of Ireland. I guess as people live there it could be called occupied in as much as it isn’t empty, is that what you mean?

    My mistake, the province is partially occupied by a foreign government. What would a referendum on reunification be for do you think?


  • Options
    #161
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Aegir wrote: »
    Nice rant. Irrelevant to the conversation though.

    The majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the union. A significant number don’t. That makes it fairly unique, especialbelly when a large number were happy to resort to slaughtering innocent people to change that situation.

    The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed and put the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people who live there. You can dream all you like, but it isn’t a roadmap to a United iteland to anyone other than Republicans, it is an agreement to end an insurgency.

    Cameron apologised for much of that and on the Irish side, with the exception of FG/Lab and other dissident republicans they don't make senators, the political will is towards peace.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    My mistake, the province is partially occupied by a foreign government. What would a referendum on reunification be for do you think?

    It isn’t a foreign government to Northern Ireland, hence no occupation


  • Options
    #163
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Aegir wrote: »
    It isn’t a foreign government to Northern Ireland, hence no occupation

    So you don't think part of Ulster being under British rule is an occupation because of time spent in situ and the royals being in Hello magazine. Understood.
    I respectfully disagree.
    So you wouldn't recognise a referendum on 'reunification' in any form because there is nothing to re-unify? A blending of part of the UK with the Republic mayhap? How about the part of an Irish province which by happenstance is in the UK, joining up to make Northern Ireland part of Western, Eastern and Southern Ireland, just for kicks?


  • Options
    #164
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,297 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I had to laugh a few years ago when the UK poured scorne on Russia for annexing parts of the Ukraine claiming that these areas had a large % of ethnic Russians and they'd organise 'democratic referenda' to confirm this is what the people wanted.

    It's as if the Russians were following a Brit recipe for annexation step by step. The only difference is the Brits also liked stirring up some sectarian violence to justify their actions as we seen in the partition of Ireland, India and Cyprus(basically one big UK army barracks)

    I for one look forward to unification, as a deathknel for the UKs hypocraful, brutal and ultimately failed colonisation and annexation projects. The thrust of this thread, should we do this in a way that's sympathetic to the Brits and their colonists. The answer is no. Too much pandering and surrender already. Irish people need to stop being so passive. The people remaining in NI who identify as British will be, very graciously on our part, be allowed to stay with full equal rights from day one. Those who take issue will not be forced to remain.


  • Options
    #165
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    So you don't think part of Ulster being under British rule is an occupation because of time spent in situ and the royals being in Hello magazine. Understood.
    I respectfully disagree.

    What has Hello magazine got to do with anything? that's a rather bizarre thing to say.

    Time has an awful lot to account for, or should be go back to the five kingdoms of Ireland because that's the way it was originally? Maybe the Ulster Scots have a valid claim to Norhern Ireland, because they are the descendants of the Kingdom of Dál Riada and are simply staking their claim to their historic kingdom?
    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    So you wouldn't recognise a referendum on 'reunification' in any form because there is nothing to re-unify?

    where did you get that from, pray tell, Hellp magazine?
    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    That was what gave impetus to the GFA or, more accurately, the Provo bombing campaign in Britain in the 1990's. While people were killing each other in the north Ulsterisation was the response, it was 'contained'. When the IRA started bombing the centre of British cities the Troubles became intolerable.

    The GFA is British acknowledgement that unification is a matter for the people Ireland alone 'without external impediment'. That external impediment has been Britain.

    so if the Loyalists started bombing Dublin and unification became untolerable, you would be happy for everything to go back to the way it was? Or is bombing innocent people only acceptable when the bombs are green white and orange?
    jm08 wrote: »
    The GFA was an agreement to end the bloodshed on both sides. However, it wasn't an agreement for unionism to revert back to pre-troubles days when as they said, 'Northern Ireland was a cold place for catholics.'

    err no, it wasn't. Who is saying that it is?
    cgcsb wrote: »
    I had to laugh a few years ago when the UK poured scorne on Russia for annexing parts of the Ukraine claiming that these areas had a large % of ethnic Russians and they'd organise 'democratic referenda' to confirm this is what the people wanted.

    It's as if the Russians were following a Brit recipe for annexation step by step. The only difference is the Brits also liked stirring up some sectarian violence to justify their actions as we seen in the partition of Ireland, India and Cyprus(basically one big UK army barracks)

    So let me get this right, you are claiming that the Brits stirred up the sectarian violence in Cyprus and India for the lols?

    Really?
    cgcsb wrote: »
    I for one look forward to unification, as a deathknel for the UKs hypocraful, brutal and ultimately failed colonisation and annexation projects. The thrust of this thread, should we do this in a way that's sympathetic to the Brits and their colonists. The answer is no. Too much pandering and surrender already. Irish people need to stop being so passive. The people remaining in NI who identify as British will be, very graciously on our part, be allowed to stay with full equal rights from day one. Those who take issue will not be forced to remain.

    Graciously allowed to stay? What is the alternative, throwing people out of their homes because they have a different world view to you?

    That isn't graciousness, that is called human rights.


  • Options
    #166
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Aegir wrote: »
    so if the Loyalists started bombing Dublin and unification became untolerable, you would be happy for everything to go back to the way it was?

    Why would unionists bomb Dublin again? What for exactly?


  • Options
    #167
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »



    So let me get this right, you are claiming that the Brits stirred up the sectarian violence in Cyprus and India for the lols?





    By being there, they stirred up conflict and violence.

    Don't you know your world history. This happened almost everywhere they went to colonise and plunder for the empire.


  • Options
    #168
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    By being there, they stirred up conflict and violence.

    Don't you know your world history. This happened almost everywhere they went to colonise and plunder for the empire.

    By being in Cyprus, they stirred up anti Turkish sentiment that lead to sectarian violence three years after independence?

    How exactly did that work then?


  • Options
    #169
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    By being in Cyprus, they stirred up anti Turkish sentiment that lead to sectarian violence three years after independence?

    How exactly did that work then?

    By being in Cyprus they stirred up conflict, in the form of groups seeking independence.
    The British lost over 300 servicemen.

    Attempts to shake off an invader/occupier have frequently led to civil and sectarian war, but sure why would the British or invader/occupier feel any responsibility for that. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #170
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    By being in Cyprus they stirred up conflict, in the form of groups seeking independence.
    The British lost over 300 servicemen.

    Attempts to shake off an invader/occupier have frequently led to civil and sectarian war, but sure why would the British or invader/occupier feel any responsibility for that. :rolleyes:

    Aaah Francie, you do make me chuckle sometimes.

    So you’re claiming the whole Enosis movement was the fault of the British?

    Go read a history book.


  • Options
    #171
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    Aaah Francie, you do make me chuckle sometimes.

    So you’re claiming the whole Enosis movement was the fault of the British?

    Go read a history book.

    I suppose EOKA killed all those British servicemen by accident, they were only pretending to want independence?
    I suppose the British turning a blind eye to the illegal activity of Turkish partitionists and actively stirring up the Turks in their policy of divide and conquer was accidental too?

    I suspect somebody is reading history books where the British are the tolerant benign heroes of the piece, again. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,015 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Aegir wrote: »
    What has Hello magazine got to do with anything? that's a rather bizarre thing to say.

    Time has an awful lot to account for, or should be go back to the five kingdoms of Ireland because that's the way it was originally? Maybe the Ulster Scots have a valid claim to Norhern Ireland, because they are the descendants of the Kingdom of Dál Riada and are simply staking their claim to their historic kingdom?



    where did you get that from, pray tell, Hellp magazine?

    With all the PR around the British monarchy and the UK one might forget all the butchery, historic and modern got them their wealth and standing. Including portions of Ulster.

    You said the section of Ulster under British rule wasn't occupied. In essence it wasn't part of Ireland, so I asked, what do you think a 're-unification' referendum would be for?


  • Options
    #173
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    With all the PR around the British monarchy and the UK one might forget all the butchery, historic and modern got them their wealth and standing. Including portions of Ulster.

    You said the section of Ulster under British rule wasn't occupied. In essence it wasn't part of Ireland, so I asked, what do you think a 're-unification' referendum would be for?

    You seem to be confusing the island of Ireland and the country of Ireland. They are two separate things.


  • Options
    #174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I suppose EOKA killed all those British servicemen by accident, they were only pretending to want independence?
    I suppose the British turning a blind eye to the illegal activity of Turkish partitionists and actively stirring up the Turks in their policy of divide and conquer was accidental too?

    I suspect somebody is reading history books where the British are the tolerant benign heroes of the piece, again. :rolleyes:

    Try not to keep going off on a tangent Francie.

    EOKA were the enosis based independence movement, but they did not invent enosis.

    Cypriot enosists biewed Cypriot turks as the enemy long before the British came to Cyprus.


  • Options
    #175
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    Try not to keep going off on a tangent Francie.

    EOKA were the enosis based independence movement, but they did not invent enosis.

    Cypriot enosists biewed Cypriot turks as the enemy long before the British came to Cyprus.

    I know you accept no blame for the actions of the empire. But despite that the presence of the British, the divide and conquer policy and the stirring of the Turkish Cypriots gave rise to Eoka.

    Hence proving what I said originally.


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I know you accept no blame for the actions of the empire. But despite that the presence of the British, the divide and conquer policy and the stirring of the Turkish Cypriots gave rise to Eoka.

    Hence proving what I said originally.

    You are a master of making one plus one equal whatever it suits your argument to be.


  • Options
    #177
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Aegir wrote: »
    You are a master of making one plus one equal whatever it suits your argument to be.

    I notice you cannot repudiate what I said. Not just what I said actually, repudiate the facts.
    By being there, they stirred up conflict and violence.


  • Options
    #178
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,616 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Aegir wrote: »
    You seem to be confusing the island of Ireland and the country of Ireland. They are two separate things.
    These are one and the same thing.
    You seem to be confusing the country of Ireland with the administrative region called "eire" or "the free state" created by the british in the 20's.

    This was after the first and only sitting of the Irish Dáil as elected by the entirety of the country.


  • Options
    #179
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,297 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Aegir wrote: »
    so if the Loyalists started bombing Dublin and unification became untolerable, you would be happy for everything to go back to the way it was? Or is bombing innocent people only acceptable when the bombs are green white and orange?

    Lol. Loyalist paramilitary groups peaked in strength in the early 1980s and at that point they remained incapable of wiping their own bums without Her Majesty's Gorvernment's assistance. They're now basically all small time drug dealers now.

    a loyalist terrorist campaign in a UI also would lack something very important, a cause, realistically they'd be fighting for a portion of Antrim to rejoin the UK at that stage, and the UK wouldn't be receptive to same. It'd be a non-cause.
    Aegir wrote: »
    So let me get this right, you are claiming that the Brits stirred up the sectarian violence in Cyprus and India for the lols?

    I don't think they done it 'for the lols' they done it for insidious reasons, in Ireland it allowed them keep the wealthiest part of Ireland at the time and hold on to key ship building facilities. In Cyprus it allowed them to make Turkey the enemy of greek Cypriots and the Brits their saviours, which in turn gave them a massive military outpost in the eastern med.

    India is a bit more complicated so I wont go there now as it's off topic.

    Aegir wrote: »
    Graciously allowed to stay? What is the alternative, throwing people out of their homes because they have a different world view to you?

    That isn't graciousness, that is called human rights.

    Indeed human rights, which were not granted to the native Irish in the British occupation or by the Orange State when it was created in 1922.


  • Options
    #180
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,297 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I suppose EOKA killed all those British servicemen by accident, they were only pretending to want independence?
    I suppose the British turning a blind eye to the illegal activity of Turkish partitionists and actively stirring up the Turks in their policy of divide and conquer was accidental too?

    I suspect somebody is reading history books where the British are the tolerant benign heroes of the piece, again. :rolleyes:

    Some bizzar Thatcher era history book, where Britain's only conflict was WW1 and 2 and sure weren't they great.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Indeed human rights, which were not granted to the native Irish in the British occupation or by the Orange State when it was created in 1922.
    How many people were displaced in 1922?

    And how many of them are still alive today?


Advertisement